Second Scottish Independence Referendum

[meridian2]

I'm honestly struggling to understand what Clappers is on about. His posts are getting more and more removed from reality.

It starts to make sense if we introduce the concept of genetic purity that he seems to be skirting around without saying outright, but obviously I don't want to put those words in his mouth.

Then you clearly haven't been reading my posts, and I'm grateful for you not putting words in my mouth, something other posters are less cautious about. Let me clarify, with emphasis on the Scottish aspect of the title, contextualised to the EU exit which has been the SNP's referendum trigger.

Last point first, you're making the common error, intentionally or not of equating culture with ethnicity. Two utterly different things. One can go into an English church and find working class and middle class British, Africans, Asians, Eastern Europeans and West Indians, and enjoy a monocultural experience. The accents are different and they go home to different food, but a two thousand year old culture - informed by an even older one - is the framework and each recognises the other as an absolute equal. Their shared values are the ones that shaped the experience in these islands, and values are the root of culture, so it's important not to blur colour and racial origin with culture.

najaB made a point of equating fast food habits and telly watching with indigenous culture. They are icons of it in the shallowest form, but you'd have to struggle to see Big Mac eating and Starbucks as symbolic of any deep rooted cultural totems. And at that point my tea is ready, so the Scottish aspects will have to wait.

 

[meridian2]

continued...
The general point being that one ignores culture at ones individual and societal peril, which is why multiculturalism isn't working. You can have pluralism, the recognition of civil and legal rights of individuals of other cultures - an inherently Christian concept enshrined in British law - but not if those individuals aspire to replace the existing culture with a different one. Some people are motivated by existential ennui or pure mischief to remove culture from the debate, and promote some vague aspiration of shared but baseless liberal humanism. I think that would create a vacuum other cultures would be more than willing to fill, and for which the same institutional niceness would have no meaningful response.

With reference to Scottish independence, I believe the Scots should be allowed a referendum at some point, but not before Brexit. We have no idea of the UK deal and the last referendum was too recent for an immanent second vote. I'm happy to debate any point I've made and people can differ, but I refuse to succumb to veiled or overt accusations of racism for the rhetorical convenience of others in lieu of a solid point.

 

[miami]

I fail to see what going into a church has to culture, a very minor part, akin to Eurovision, or Ant and Dec, or Enid Blyton. This isn't the 15th century, where church attendence was ensured due to a lack of education and of course alms for the poor. Fortunately we've mostly evolved beyond that, (at least most of us have). Those people I know who do church things are happy to live and let live, same as those that play cricket, go scuba diving, etc. It's a hobby shared by people across the world, but not necceraaolly by your neighbours. Go into a church in England and you'll likely find an empty room.

I don't know anyone that goes on about football, undeniably a large part of life for many people. The hobbies that people enjoy amongst my peers are the same types of things, from Manchester to Manila. Europe especially is almost identical, and I have far more in common culturally with a software developer in Stockholm than most of the people on the local parish council, just as a typically ukip councillor has more in common with Gerrt Wilders or Maine Le Pen or Donald Trump than they do with me.

Modern communication renders traditional borders more and more irrelevant, we no longer have to conform to local expectations, we can instead find those that we "click" with. This trend won't be reversed, and it's why we need to find a way to survive in the global village without stepping on each other's toes. Part of this is making it easy for people to live and work without barriers. I can't move to New Zealand as my parent can't move there, and they want to know their grandchildren. Due to health issues, my father can't travel out of Europe - £4K insurance when I looked for 2 weeks in the US. Fortunately he can still visit Europe, but a tiny minority of Tory supporters (by no means all of them, just the Ultras) are determined that this should go away, as they want to control other people's lives.

 

[GaryMcEwan]

As I live and work in Scotland and was brought up in this country I would just like too add my two pence worth, or groats worth or shillings worth.

In 2014 I voted No and to remain in the UK in the Scottish Independence referendum and was a No voter and supporter right from the very beginning when it was first mooted by the SNP a couple of years before.

Fast forward to 2016 and the EU referendum, I voted to Leave the EU. Now yet again the SNP are throwing another referendum back in the mix.

The SNP seem to forget that the United Kingdom as a whole voted to leave. This was not a Scotland only vote. The SNP seem to keep on saying that 62% of Scotland voted to remain on a 67% turnout. Now taking the votes to remain and leave this actually works out with a remain vote of only 41.875% and to the 62% that they keep on banding about. It would be a 62% vote if 100% of eligible voters voted.

Theresa May is absolutely right to say that now is not the time to hold another referendum given that we still do not know that the Brexit deal is going to look like.

Watching the interviews between all the Scottish leaders, the only one that seems to be on the ball is Ruth Davidson. Nicola Sturgeon was in an absolute flap this morning on Sky News and starting getting questions put to her that she could not answer because she didn't have an answer to give.

Ruth Davidson on Andrew Marr this morning, was in a class of her own. Andrew Marr deliberately tried to trip her up on several occasions but didn't work.

I hope in all sincerity that Westminster reject the Section 30 order that the SNP and the Greens will vote for next week.

Going forward, we need a figure to lead the No campaign if and when Nicola Sturgeon gets her neverendum, and that figure certainly won't be the likes of Gordon Brown or John Major who seem to be popping their heads up from the pulpit again.

 

[GusB]

The SNP seem to forget that the United Kingdom as a whole voted to leave. This was not a Scotland only vote. The SNP seem to keep on saying that 62% of Scotland voted to remain on a 67% turnout. Now taking the votes to remain and leave this actually works out with a remain vote of only 41.875% and to the 62% that they keep on banding about. It would be a 62% vote if 100% of eligible voters voted.

You're assuming that the 33% of the electorate who didn't vote in the referendum would have voted leave. Using the same method you've used to calculate your 41% figure, it means that only 25% of the electorate in Scotland actually voted to leave. :P

 

[najaB]

You're assuming that the 33% of the electorate who didn't vote in the referendum would have voted leave. Using the same method you've used to calculate your 41% figure, it means that only 25% of the electorate in Scotland actually voted to leave. :P

And I think it is more likely that people who chose not to vote did so because they were satisfied with the status quo than that they wanted change.

 

[Steveman]

And I think it is more likely that people who chose not to vote did so because they were satisfied with the status quo than that they wanted change.

Massive assumption, with no basis in fact.
I would say people who don't vote in any election/referendum are split 50/50ish in what views they may have.

 

[najaB]

Massive assumption, with no basis in fact.

There is research that indicates it to be the case: Brits who didn't vote in the EU referendum now wish they voted against Brexit.

 

[Steveman]

There is research that indicates it to be the case: Brits who didn't vote in the EU referendum now wish they voted against Brexit.

Hypothetical which the survey admits.

Just a few of Osbornes post Brexit predictions.

£15bn of tax rises, comprising a 2p rise in the basic rate of income tax to 22%, a 3p rise in the higher rate to 43% plus a 5% rise in the inheritance tax rate to 45p
An increase in alcohol and petrol duties by 5%.
Emergency Brexit punishment budget
Spending cuts worth £15bn, including a 2% reduction for health, defence and education, equivalent to £2.5bn, £1.2bn, £1.15bn a year respectively
Larger cuts of 5% from policing, transport and local government budgets.
And who can forget "the redundancies start tomorrow"

After that lot he should never ever be seen in public life again.

 

[meridian2]

Fortunately he can still visit Europe, but a tiny minority of Tory supporters (by no means all of them, just the Ultras) are determined that this should go away, as they want to control other people's lives.

As a lifelong Labour voter I'm glad none of that applies to me. As for Ant and Dec and Starbucks being the equivalent of Parliamentary Democracy or the Christian faith, if you really believe that I pity you.

 

[miami]

As a lifelong Labour voter I'm glad none of that applies to me. As for Ant and Dec and Starbucks being the equivalent of Parliamentary Democracy or the Christian faith, if you really believe that I pity you.

You keep going on about this irrelevant fanclub as though it's part of culture - about 1% of the country visit on a regular basis, and under 5% visiting at christmas, and that figure is falling all the time. You could say going to church is part of american culture, it's far more normal there - 26% every week, 50% every month, and 80% occasionally.

As for Parliamentary Democracy it's not a concept that's uniquiely British, any more than the railroad is.

You may vote Labour, but you're clearly a die-hard ultra hard-right tory at heart. The PMs in the last 40 years closest to your beliefs would be May and Thatcher.

 

[Barn]

You may vote Labour, but you're clearly a die-hard ultra hard-right tory at heart.

It's certainly true that the current Labour party wouldn't serve the needs of clappers, but it's completely wrong to imagine that there are no socially conservative traditional Labour voters. There are, and Jeremy Corbyn will find this out to his cost.

 

[meridian2]

It's certainly true that the current Labour party wouldn't serve the needs of clappers, but it's completely wrong to imagine that there are no socially conservative traditional Labour voters. There are, and Jeremy Corbyn will find this out to his cost.

Thank you, Barn. It's sad that the socially conservative Labour vote, a once huge constituency, has been replaced by an irrelevant, naval gazing, "issues" lead right-on 80s revival party. That people conflate it with "die-hard ultra hard-right tory" vote is pure ignorance.

 

[47802]

As I live and work in Scotland and was brought up in this country I would just like too add my two pence worth, or groats worth or shillings worth.

Theresa May is absolutely right to say that now is not the time to hold another referendum given that we still do not know that the Brexit deal is going to look like.

Ruth Davidson on Andrew Marr this morning, was in a class of her own. Andrew Marr deliberately tried to trip her up on several occasions but didn't work.

Going forward, we need a figure to lead the No campaign if and when Nicola Sturgeon gets her neverendum, and that figure certainly won't be the likes of Gordon Brown or John Major who seem to be popping their heads up from the pulpit again.

I would have thought that Ruth Davidson would be the best candidate to lead the No vote.

 

[EM2]

Thank you, Barn. It's sad that the socially conservative Labour vote, a once huge constituency, has been replaced by an irrelevant, naval gazing, "issues" lead right-on 80s revival party.

Just out of interest, which past Labour leader would be closest to your ideals?

 

[meridian2]

Just out of interest, which past Labour leader would be closest to your ideals?

Quite a few, but Kier Hardy comes to mind. The old self help Labour traditions that were suspicious of the market and the state and believed power and wealth should be in communities and not central government. John Smith was perhaps the closest recent leader.

 

[EM2]

You can have pluralism, the recognition of civil and legal rights of individuals of other cultures - an inherently Christian concept enshrined in British law - but not if those individuals aspire to replace the existing culture with a different one.

But how many *really * want that? I've never heard anything of that ilk from Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or Rastafarians, so I assume that you're referring to Muslims. And even then, is there *really * a huge upswell preparing to replace British culture?

 

[meridian2]

But how many *really * want that? I've never heard anything of that ilk from Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or Rastafarians, so I assume that you're referring to Muslims. And even then, is there *really * a huge upswell preparing to replace British culture?

It would be sensible to be vigilant against any secular or religious attacks on British culture. Culture is always changing, but requires the test of time to prove what's valid. One day Gracie Fields and The Fall, Starbucks and SnapChat may represent culture, but that's for our great-grandchildren to tell us, not for anyone to impose on the people.

 

[AlterEgo]

It would be sensible to be vigilant against any secular or religious attacks on British culture. Culture is always changing, but requires the test of time to prove what's valid. One day Gracie Fields and The Fall, Starbucks and SnapChat may represent culture, but that's for our great-grandchildren to tell us, not for anyone to impose on the people.

In much the same way, Christianity used to be our culture, but it demonstrably is no longer, even despite its enormous contribution to the building of the state.

At one time the Catholic Church was our culture, but no longer!

 

[meridian2]

In much the same way, Christianity used to be our culture, but it demonstrably is no longer, even despite its enormous contribution to the building of the state.

At one time the Catholic Church was our culture, but no longer!

If it was demonstrably the case, the monarch would no longer be head of the established church, and the word God would be removed from statute. I'm not a member of the CofE but recognise the country as institutionally Christian.

 

[me123]

Then you clearly haven't been reading my posts, and I'm grateful for you not putting words in my mouth, something other posters are less cautious about. Let me clarify, with emphasis on the Scottish aspect of the title, contextualised to the EU exit which has been the SNP's referendum trigger.

Last point first, you're making the common error, intentionally or not of equating culture with ethnicity. Two utterly different things. One can go into an English church and find working class and middle class British, Africans, Asians, Eastern Europeans and West Indians, and enjoy a monocultural experience. The accents are different and they go home to different food, but a two thousand year old culture - informed by an even older one - is the framework and each recognises the other as an absolute equal. Their shared values are the ones that shaped the experience in these islands, and values are the root of culture, so it's important not to blur colour and racial origin with culture.

Thank you for a post that actually appears to make sense, because in the 24 hours prior they were getting more and more bizarre and irrelevant. I actually have read your posts, and really made little to no sense, unless you start to infer meaning.

I must definitely do not equate ethnicity with culture. Nor do I equate ethnicity with religion - this is the error that you are making. Christianity is not and should not be our culture. Whilst the country is technically Christian, I strongly believe that church and state should be firmly separated - and that means that the monarch should relinquish one of their roles (i.e. should not be head of state and head of the church), all reference to religion in our constitutional framework removed, and (most importantly) get those bloody bishops out of the house of Lords. They have no business being there. The Church is an irrelevant institution in modern life, and having actually read the bible I'm very glad that that is the case.

Christianity is not a culture anyway, it is a religion. Culture is deeper than that; it includes aspects of not only religious but secular derivation.

You also seem to equate culture with the number of indigenous people, or rather equate the loss of culture with an influx of non-indigenous people. Culture is a very fluid thing, but I honestly don't see huge cultural change. Go around the world and most countries have their own distinct identity. There may be many people from other countries, but that doesn't change the fact that each country feels distinctly unique.

Culture arises from the people who live in the country, and although it's fluid it is actually pretty hard to change - humans are comfortable set in their own ways. The biggest threat to any culture is the abandonment of it by the people who live in the country. In fact, I think culture is very much enriched by influences from around the world.

 

[meridian2]

Thank you for a post that actually appears to make sense, because in the 24 hours prior they were getting more and more bizarre and irrelevant. I actually have read your posts, and really made little to no sense, unless you start to infer meaning.

I must definitely do not equate ethnicity with culture. Nor do I equate ethnicity with religion - this is the error that you are making. Christianity is not and should not be our culture. Whilst the country is technically Christian, I strongly believe that church and state should be firmly separated - and that means that the monarch should relinquish one of their roles (i.e. should not be head of state and head of the church), all reference to religion in our constitutional framework removed, and (most importantly) get those bloody bishops out of the house of Lords. They have no business being there. The Church is an irrelevant institution in modern life, and having actually read the bible I'm very glad that that is the case.

Christianity is not a culture anyway, it is a religion. Culture is deeper than that; it includes aspects of not only religious but secular derivation.

You also seem to equate culture with the number of indigenous people, or rather equate the loss of culture with an influx of non-indigenous people. Culture is a very fluid thing, but I honestly don't see huge cultural change. Go around the world and most countries have their own distinct identity. There may be many people from other countries, but that doesn't change the fact that each country feels distinctly unique.

Culture arises from the people who live in the country, and although it's fluid it is actually pretty hard to change - humans are comfortable set in their own ways. The biggest threat to any culture is the abandonment of it by the people who live in the country. In fact, I think culture is very much enriched by influences from around the world.

So long as you recognise you're expressing an opinion, not empirical fact, you're welcome to it. I disagree with almost all you've said, including the initial slur that my posts fail to make sense on the basis you disagree with them, but that's the difference between rhetoric and fact.

 

[AlterEgo]

If it was demonstrably the case, the monarch would no longer be head of the established church, and the word God would be removed from statute. I'm not a member of the CofE but recognise the country as institutionally Christian.

But what appears in statute and constitution isn't the same as culture.

 

[meridian2]

But what appears in statute and constitution isn't the same as culture.

Culture has the same root as cult: The term cult usually refers to a social group defined by their religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or common interest in a particular personality, object or goal.

 

[me123]

So long as you recognise you're expressing an opinion, not empirical fact, you're welcome to it. I disagree with almost all you've said, including the initial slur that my posts fail to make sense on the basis you disagree with them, but that's the difference between rhetoric and fact.

Your posts don't make sense because they are erratic and lack substance. In order for them to make any sense, you need to infer a deeper meaning which you failed to do. For example:

Based on current trends, Westerners aren't having enough children to maintain an identifiable cultural presence in a century's time. My only hope is the influx from African and Asian Christian countries maintains a historical religious connection.

This makes little to no sense, and appears to mix up issues of race, religion and culture. You may well have a point with this statement (I suspect I'd strongly disagree with it), but until you clarify what you're trying to say I cannot really do anything with this statement - I can infer meaning, which is unfair to you as there are quite a lot of meanings that you could have. Perhaps you should start by identifying what you mean by "culture"? You seem to equate culture with religion from what I understand?

There is a difference between not making sense and disagreeing. I disagree with lots of people who make sense. I also disagree with you on a lot of things it seems, but on quite a lot of your points I can't really say either way because many of your arguments are not fully explained.

Yes, a lot of what I've stated is opinion. A lot of what you've stated is opinion. Our opinions appear to be diametrically opposed. I am very happy that I don't share your view of the world.

I also fail to see what any of the last several pages has to do with Scottish Independence.

 

[meridian2]

Your posts don't make sense because they are erratic and lack substance.

The Scottish independence diversion occurred through people arguing about what Scottish culture represented, and whether it was best served by the requirements of the EU. My quote you offered does not lack substance, it's a simple fact that people who comprise the majority on this board, geeky white guys of a certain age, along with many other identifiably British traits and constituencies, are not reproducing in sufficient numbers to be represented in a hundred years time. To maintain a steady population requires a reproduction rate of 2.1. The fertility rate across the EU has dropped from 2.6 in 1960 to 1.5 in 2014. And even those paltry rates are substantially down to immigrant communities. The problem has knock on effects into countries with high migration, in Poland for example there are a huge number of villages with no one under 40.

This is a major problem for secularists like yourself, and a new study suggests the religiously unaffiliated, atheists, agnostics, etc, will represent a mere 13% of the global population by 2050. Your attempt to separate out religion and culture does not make sense, both are entwined and have the same root, the culture of Saudi Arabia is as Muslim as the culture of Britain is Christian, each allow social manifestations to take place, or not.

 

[me123]

The Scottish independence diversion occurred through people arguing about what Scottish culture represented, and whether it was best served by the requirements of the EU. My quote you offered does not lack substance, it's a simple fact that people who comprise the majority on this board, geeky white guys of a certain age, along with many other identifiably British traits and constituencies, are not reproducing in sufficient numbers to be represented in a hundred years time. To maintain a steady population requires a reproduction rate of 2.1. The fertility rate across the EU has dropped from 2.6 in 1960 to 1.5 in 2014. And even those paltry rates are substantially down to immigrant communities. The problem has knock on effects into countries with high migration, in Poland for example there are a huge number of villages with no one under 40.

This is a major problem for secularists like yourself, and a new study suggests the religiously unaffiliated, atheists, agnostics, etc, will represent a mere 13% of the global population by 2050.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? Besides, you don't have to be an atheist/secularist to advocate for the separation of church and state. Many religious people also argue for the same. Religion has no role in government.

It's generally considered good practice to state which studies you refer to (rather than saying "a major study"), but if you're talking about this one, then I would like to point out that there's little consideration for those who change their beliefs. Belief in religion is influenced by ones parents and local culture (note - not the same thing!) and has no genetic basis. As children grow up, they may change their beliefs from those of their family/upbringing in light of their new found independence.

If you genuinely think that secularists are going to die out within a hundred years because we aren't breeding enough... I have no words.

Your attempt to separate out religion and culture does not make sense, both are entwined and have the same root, the culture of Saudi Arabia is as Muslim as the culture of Britain is Christian, each allow social manifestations to take place, or not.

Culture is influenced by religion, but they are not synonymous. Our culture in the UK is different from other EU countries, but we are all predominantly Christian countries. It is wrong, and insufficient to say that we have a "Christian" culture. Lots of other countries have "Christian" cultures that are very different from our "Christian" culture. Culture across the many Islamic countries is also different in each country. I'm not ignoring the true fact that religion has actually played a role in the development of any particular country's culture, I'm arguing that culture extends far beyond religion.

And that last one was yet another example of an erratic post. We're now on the subject of reproductive rates of atheists.

 

[meridian2]

And that last one was yet another example of an erratic post. We're now on the subject of reproductive rates of atheists.

It wasn't an erratic post, it addressed each aspect of your previous reply. You may deny that a pluralistic democracy like Britain has nothing to do with its Christian heritage, but you'd be incorrect, as a visit to non-Christian, non-pluralistic countries will quickly reveal. The subject of culture is a multifaceted one, my point is people don't appreciate the freedom this society offers them, or they'd like to replace it with something different. It's hardly "erratic" to bring birth rates into such a discussion.

Most egregious is the tendency to infer things I haven't said or even suggested. If you believe this you must believe that may fit someone's political agenda, but it doesn't make it true. If someone can be called a hard core Tory for expressing traditional, socially conservative Labour values, it's a mark of how politicised the discourse has become, and how ignorant people are of subjects they claim knowledge in.

 

[me123]

You may deny that a pluralistic democracy like Britain has nothing to do with its Christian heritage, but you'd be incorrect, as a visit to non-Christian, non-pluralistic countries will quickly reveal.

Christianity did not create pluralistic democracy. Democracy predates Christianity. Christianity is not a prerequisite for democracy - two obvious examples here include the United States of America (an officially secular country - albeit predominantly Christian but there is a key distinction between Church and State specifically outlined in the First Amendment), and Japan (secular). Christianity does not hold a monopoly on democracy. In fact, Christianity has led to the inherently non-democratic situation where we in the UK have an unelected head of a Church as our head of state and several unelected members of the Church of England sitting in the upper chamber of our parliament.

Most egregious is the tendency to infer things I haven't said or even suggested. If you believe this you must believe that may fit someone's political agenda, but it doesn't make it true. If someone can be called a hard core Tory for expressing traditional, socially conservative Labour values, it's a mark of how politicised the discourse has become, and how ignorant people are of subjects they claim knowledge in.

I've done nothing of the sort, in fact I've tried to go out of my way to not fill in the gaps in your arguments, which is genuinely quite difficult because there are still a lot of gaps.

 

[meridian2]

Christianity did not create pluralistic democracy. Democracy predates Christianity. Christianity is not a prerequisite for democracy - two obvious examples here include the United States of America (an officially secular country - albeit predominantly Christian but there is a key distinction between Church and State specifically outlined in the First Amendment), and Japan (secular). Christianity does not hold a monopoly on democracy. In fact, Christianity has led to the inherently non-democratic situation where we in the UK have an unelected head of a Church as our head of state and several unelected members of the Church of England sitting in the upper chamber of our parliament.



I've done nothing of the sort, in fact I've tried to go out of my way to not fill in the gaps in your arguments, which is genuinely quite difficult because there are still a lot of gaps.

I didn't say Christianity has a monopoly on democracy, I'm well aware of its classical roots. I'm arguing that Christian democracies offer exemplary freedom of thought and action through uniquely Christian principles, which are unappreciated, ignored or scorned. The House of Lords contains expert opinion in a number of areas, one of which is theology and ethics. That does not make parliament a theocracy, but it offers checks against the self interest of here today, gone tomorrow politicians and the political secularists offering materialist metaphysics as panacea. The balance of forces is imperfect but works to protect the rights of the individual, something the alternatives do not.